Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Place of Emotion in Argument

Pennsylvania State University Press (1992)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Take My Advice—I Am Not Following It: Ad Hominem Arguments as Legitimate Rebuttals to Appeals to Authority.Moti Mizrahi - 2010 - Informal Logic 30 (4):435-456.
    In this paper, I argue that ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. More explicitly, in certain cases of practical reasoning, the circumstances of a person are relevant to whether or not the conclusion should be accepted. This occurs, I suggest, when a person gives advice to others or prescribes certain courses of action but fails to follow her own advice or act in accordance with her own prescriptions. This is not an instance of a fallacious tu quoque provided that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.Scott Jacobs - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):261-286.
    Normative pragmatics can bridge the differences between dialectical and rhetorical theories in a way that saves the central insights of both. Normative pragmatics calls attention to how the manifest strategic design of a message produces interpretive effects and interactional consequences. Argumentative analysis of messages should begin with the manifest persuasive rationale they communicate. But not all persuasive inducements should be treated as arguments. Arguments express with a special pragmatic force propositions where those propositions stand in particular inferential relations to one (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • The Ground of Dialogical Bioethics.Abraham Rudnick - 2002 - Health Care Analysis 10 (4):391-402.
    Dialogical ethics are a procedural alternative to substantive ethics such as consequentialism, deontology, principlism, casuistry, virtue ethics and care ethics. Dialogical ethics are procedural in that they do not establish goods in advance, unlike substantive ethics, but rather determine goods through a procedure enacted by the actual parties involved (although some substantive notion of justice may still be required); and they are dialogical in that the procedure is that of dialogue, involving both empathic critical discussion and negotiation. A fundamental tenet (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Douglas Walton (2000), Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. [REVIEW]Robert C. Pinto - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (2):261-269.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair.John Anthony Blair - 2011 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    J. Anthony Blair is a prominent international figure in argumentation studies. He is among the originators of informal logic, an author of textbooks on the informal logic approach to argument analysis and evaluation and on critical thinking, and a founder and editor of the journal Informal Logic. Blair is widely recognized among the leaders in the field for contributing formative ideas to the argumentation literature of the last few decades. This selection of key works provides insights into the history of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Dialogue Types, Argumentation Schemes, and Mathematical Practice: Douglas Walton and Mathematics.Andrew Aberdein - 2021 - Journal of Applied Logics 8 (1):159-182.
    Douglas Walton’s multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types (§1) and argumentation schemes (§2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Informal Logic: A 'Canadian' Approach to Argument.Federico Puppo (ed.) - 2019 - Windsor, Canada: Windsor Studies in Argumentation.
    The informal logic movement began as an attempt to develop – and teach – an alternative logic which can account for the real life arguing that surrounds us in our daily lives – in newspapers and the popular media, political and social commentary, advertising, and interpersonal exchange. The movement was rooted in research and discussion in Canada and especially at the University of Windsor, and has become a branch of argumentation theory which intersects with related traditions and approaches (notably formal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Sic Sat. pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Arguments from Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias.Moti Mizrahi - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):175-195.
    Accounts of arguments from expert opinion take it for granted that expert judgments count as (defeasible) evidence for propositions, and so an argument that proceeds from premises about what an expert judges to a conclusion that the expert is probably right is a strong argument. In Mizrahi (2013), I consider a potential justification for this assumption, namely, that expert judgments are significantly more likely to be true than novice judgments, and find it wanting because of empirical evidence suggesting that expert (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Attacking authority.Matthews Steve - 2011 - Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics 13 (2):59-70.
    The quality of our public discourse – think of the climate change debate for instance – is never very high. A day spent observing it reveals a litany of misrepresentation and error, argumentative fallacy, and a general lack of good will. In this paper I focus on a microcosmic aspect of these practices: the use of two types of argument – the argumentum ad hominem and appeal to authority – and a way in which they are related. Public debate is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A socio-pragmatic investigation of the persuasive strategies in "al-ittijāh al-muʿākis" (‘The Opposite Direction’) on Al-Jazeera TV.Sadam Issa - 2015 - Pragmatics and Society 6 (4):517-537.
    This study is a socio-pragmatic analysis of persuasive strategies used by the participants in “al-ittijāh al-muʿākis”, “The Opposite Direction”, on the Al-­Jazeera TV channel. An ethnographic approach was adopted in the research; the analysis focused on the use of politeness strategies and face-saving and face-­threatening interactions in order to find out their persuasive factors. I observe that religious citations, prophetic sayings, proverbs, and metaphor are used predominantly by the participants in communicating various political issues. I argue that the persuasiveness of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Friemann.Gerald Nosich - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • New Concepts for Argument Evaluation.Taeda Jovicic - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Feminist Perspectives on Argumentation.Catherine E. Hundleby - 2021 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Feminists note an association of arguing with aggression and masculinity and question the necessity of this connection. Arguing also seems to some to identify a central method of philosophical reasoning, and gendered assumptions and standards would pose problems for the discipline. Can feminine modes of reasoning provide an alternative or supplement? Can overarching epistemological standards account for the benefits of different approaches to arguing? These are some of the prospects for argumentation inside and outside of philosophy that feminists consider. -/- (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Dissent in the Midst of Emotional Territory.Linda Carozza - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (2):197-210.
    This paper focuses on disagreement spaces fused with emotion. Following Gilbert’s emotional mode of argumentation (1997), further expansions of the mode are made here, specifically for the purposes of being able to classify different types of emotional arguments. First, general concerns with arguments that stray from the traditional approach are addressed. Then a classification system for different types of emotional arguments is developed. Some of the criteria that help determine emotional arguments include dialogue types, arguers involved, as well as the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Informal Logic: An Overview.J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
    In this overview article, we first explain what we take informal logic to be, discussing misconceptions and distinguishing our conception of it from competing ones; second, we briefly catalogue recent informal logic research, under 14 headings; third, we suggest four broad areas of problems and questions for future research; fourth, we describe current scholarly resources for informal logic; fifth, we discuss three implications of informal logic for philosophy in particular, and take note ofpractical consequences of a more general sort.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • The Fallacy of Treating the Ad Baculum as a Fallacy.Don S. Levi - 1999 - Informal Logic 19 (2).
    The ad baculum is not a fallacy in an argument, but is offered instead of an argument to put an end to further argument. This claim is the basis for criticizing Michael Wreen's "neo-traditionalism," which yields misreadings of supposed cases of the ad baculum because of its rejection of any consideration of what the person using the ad baculum, or someone who refers to that use as an "argument," is doing. The paper concludes with reflections on the values that should (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Revolutionary Rhetoric: Georg Büchner’s “Der Hessische Landbote” – A Case Study. [REVIEW]Manfred Kienpointner - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (2):129-149.
    In this paper, the political pamphlet “Der Hessische Landbote” by the eminent German author, Georg Büchner (1813–1837), will be positioned within the context of its political and historical background, analyzed as to its argumentative and stylistic structure, and critically evaluated. It will be argued that propaganda texts such as this should be evaluated by taking into account both rhetorical perspectives and standards of rational discussion. As far as argumentative structure is concerned, a modified version of the Toulmin scheme will be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What’s Wrong with Argumentum ad Baculum? Reasons, Threats, and Logical Norms.Robert H. Kimball - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (1):89-100.
    A dialogue-based analysis of informal fallacies does not provide a fully adequate explanation of our intuitions about what is wrong with ad baculum and of when it is admissible and when it is not. The dialogue-based analysis explains well why mild, benign threats can be legitimate in some situations, such as cooperative bargaining and negotiation, but does not satisfactorily account for what is objectionable about more malicious uses of threats to coerce and to intimidate. I propose an alternative deriving partly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?George Boger - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (2):187-238.
    Argumentation logicians have recognized a specter of relativism to haunt their philosophy of argument. However, their attempts to dispel pernicious relativism by invoking notions of a universal audience or a community of model interlocutors have not been entirely successful. In fact, their various discussions of a universal audience invoke the context-eschewing formalism of Kant’s categorical imperative. Moreover, they embrace the Kantian method for resolving the antinomies that continually vacillates between opposing extremes – here between a transcendent universal audience and a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Why Arguments from Expert Opinion are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
    In this paper, I argue that arguments from expert opinion, i.e., inferences from “Expert E says that p” to “p,” where the truth value of p is unknown, are weak arguments. A weak argument is an argument in which the premises, even if true, provide weak support—or no support at all—for the conclusion. Such arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments unless the fact that an expert says that p makes p significantly more likely to be true. However, research on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of Hypocrisy.Scott F. Aikin - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):155-169.
    Though textbook tu quoque arguments are fallacies of relevance, many versions of arguments from hypocrisy are indirectly relevant to the issue. Some arguments from hypocrisy are challenges to the authority of a speaker on the basis of either her sincerity or competency regarding the issue. Other arguments from hypocrisy purport to be evidence of the impracticability of the opponent’s proposals. Further, some versions of hypocrisy charges from impracticability are open to a counter that I will term tu quoque judo.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren - 2009 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations  
  • Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing Epistemic Risk.David Godden - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):485-511.
    Standards and norms for reasoning function, in part, to manage epistemic risk. Properly used, modal qualifiers like presumably have a role in systematically managing epistemic risk by flagging and tracking type-specific epistemic merits and risks of the claims they modify. Yet, argumentation-theoretic accounts of presumption often define it in terms of modalities of other kinds, thereby failing to recognize the unique risk profile of each. This paper offers a stipulative account of presumption, inspired by Ullmann-Margalit, as an inferentially generated modal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):141-159.
    In many contexts a retraction of commitment isfrowned upon. For instance, it is not appreciated,generally, if one withdraws a promise or denies anearlier statement. Critical discussion, too, caneasily be disrupted by retractions, if these occur toofrequently and at critical points. But on the otherhand, the very goal of critical discussion –resolution of a dispute – involves a retraction,either of doubt, or of some expressed point of view.A person who never retracts, not even under pressureof cogent arguments, would hardly qualify as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Mizrahi and Seidel: Experts in Confusion.Martin David Hinton - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (4):539-554.
    In this paper I describe the apparent differences between the views of Mizrahi and Seidel on the strength of arguments from expert opinion. I show that most of Seidel's objections rely on an understanding of the words 'expert' and 'opinion' different from those which Mizrahi employs. I also discuss certain inconsistencies found in both papers over the use of these key terms. The paper concludes by noting that Mizrahi is right to suggest that evidence shows expert predictions to be unreliable, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Appeal to pity: A case study of theargumentum ad misericordiam. [REVIEW]Douglas Walton - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):769-784.
    The appeal to pity, orargumentum ad misericordiam, has traditionally been classified by the logic textbooks as an informal fallacy. The particular case studied in this article is a description of a series of events in 1990–91 during the occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. A fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah had a pivotal effect on the U.S. decision to invade Kuwait by testifying to a senate committee (while crying) that Iraqi soldiers had pulled babies out of incubators in a hospital (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Processing natural language arguments with the platform.Patrick Saint-Dizier - 2012 - Argument and Computation 3 (1):49 - 82.
    In this article, we first present the platform and the Dislog language, designed for discourse analysis with a logic and linguistic perspective. The platform has now reached a certain level of maturity which allows the recognition of a large diversity of discourse structures including general-purpose rhetorical structures as well as domain-specific discourse structures. The Dislog language is based on linguistic considerations and includes knowledge access and inference capabilities. Functionalities of the language are presented together with a method for writing discourse (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The Greenhouse: A Welfare Assessment and Some Morals.Christoph Lumer - 2002 - Lanham, MD; New York; Oxford: University Press of America.
    In this book some options concerning the greenhouse effect are assessed from a welfarist point of view: business as usual, stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and reduction by 25% and by 60%. Up to today only economic analyses of such options are available, which monetize welfare losses. Because this is found to be wanting from a moral point of view, the present study welfarizes (among others) monetary losses on the basis of a hedonistic utilitarianism and other, justice incorporating, welfare ethics. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Reply to commentary on ‘Emotional legal arguments and a broken leg’.Rubens Damasceno-Morais - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Concept of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation.Harald R. Wohlrapp - 2014 - Dordrecht NL: Springer.
    Arguing that our attachment to Aristotelian modes of discourse makes a revision of their conceptual foundations long overdue, the author proposes the consideration of unacknowledged factors that play a central role in argument itself. These are in particular the subjective imprint and the dynamics of argumentation. Their inclusion in a four-dimensional framework and the focus on thesis validity allow for a more realistic view of our discourse practice. Exhaustive analyses of fascinating historical and contemporary arguments are provided. These range from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • When Reasons Don’t Work.Patrick Bondy - 2009
    The aim of this paper is to extend Miranda Fricker’s conception of testimonial injustice to what I call “argumentative injustice”: those cases where an arguer’s social identity brings listeners to place too little or too much credibility in an argument. My recommendation is to put in place a type of indirect “affirmative action” plan for argument evaluation. I also situate my proposal in Johnson ’s framework of argumentation as an exercise in manifest rationality. -/- *Note: this is an unpublished manuscript (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentative Patterns in the Political Domain: The Case of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry.Corina Andone - 2016 - Argumentation 30 (1):45-60.
    In this paper, close attention is paid to the argumentative patterns resulting from combining pragmatic argumentation in which a recommendation is made with arguments in which the majority is invoked. I focus on such argumentative patterns as employed by European parliamentary committees of inquiry conducting inquiries into the activity of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. By incorporating legal and political insights about the activity of these parliamentary committees of inquiry into a pragma-dialectical argumentative approach, an analysis will be given of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Some axioms underlying argumentation theory.George Boger - unknown
    This paper examines whether philosophers of argument, in spite of their disavowing ‘timeless principles’, nevertheless embrace a set of principles, or axioms, to underlie argumentation theory. First, it reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument; second, it extracts some principles common to their philosophies; and third, it draws out possible consequences for argumentation theory and asks whether such theory has an underlying political posture.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-discursive Approach to Arguments.Ruth Amossy - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):252-267.
    Rather than the art of putting forward logically valid arguments leading to Truth, argumentation is here viewed as the use of verbal means ensuring an agreement on what can be considered reasonable by a given group, on a more or less controversial matter. What is acceptable and plausible is always coconstructed by subjects engaging in verbal interaction. It is the dynamism of this exchange, realized not only in natural language, but also in a specific cultural framework, that has to be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Informal Logic’s Influence on Philosophy Instruction.J. Anthony Blair - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):259-286.
    Informal logic began in the 1970s as a critique of then-current theoretical assumptions in the teaching of argument analysis and evaluation in philosophy departments in the U.S. and Canada. The last 35 years have seen significant developments in informal logic and critical thinking theory. The paper is a pilot study of the influence of these advances in theory on what is taught in courses on argument analysis and critical thinking in U.S. and Canadian philosophy departments. Its finding, provisional and much-qualified, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Emotion, Argumentation and Informal Logic.Michael A. Gilbert - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (3):245-264.
    Over the past 60 years there have been tremendous advances made in Argumentation Theory. One crucial advance has been the move from the investigation of static arguments to a concern with dialogic interactions in concrete contexts. This focus has entailed a slow shift toward involving both non-logical and non-discursive elements in the analysis of an argument. I argue that the traditional attitude Informal Logic has displayed toward emotion can be and ought be moderated. In particular, I examine the role of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Emotions as Objects of Argumentative Constructions.Raphaël Micheli - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (1):1-17.
    This paper takes part in the ongoing debate on how emotions can be dealt with by argumentation theory. Its main goal is to formulate a relationship between emotion and argumentation which differs from that usually found in most of the literature on the subject. In the “standard” conception, emotions are seen as the objects of appeals which function as adjuvants to argumentation: speakers appeal to pity, fear, shame and the like in order to enhance the cogency of an argument which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Rethinking the Ad Hominem: A Case Study of Chomsky. [REVIEW]R. Metcalf - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (1):29-52.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Outrageous, inescapable? Debating historical analogies in the coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.Jerome Bourdon - 2015 - Discourse and Communication 9 (4):407-422.
    This article explores the debate that has surrounded the use of analogies in coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, analyzing in depth two ‘analogy affairs’ on the basis of a LexisNexis corpus: the 2002 Auschwitz-Saramago affair and the 2006–2007 Apartheid-Carter affair. Using the classic Aristotelian tripartition of logos, ethos, and pathos, the article unfolds the argumentative structure of the controversies. Carter and Saramago used the combination of their own personal status and the controversial nature of their analogies to trigger a debate. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Commentary on Emotional Legal Arguments and a Broken Leg.Linda Carozza - unknown
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Humanist Principles Underlying Philosophy of Argument.George Boger - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (2):149-174.
    This discussion reviews the thinking of some prominent philosophers of argument to extract principles common to their thinking. It shows that a growing concern with dialogical pragmatics is better appreciated as a part of applied ethics than of applied epistemology. The discussion concludes by indicating a possible consequence for philosophy of argument and invites further discussion by asking whether argumentation philosophy has an implicit, underlying moral, or even political, posture.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Whately on Arguments Involving Authority.Hans V. Hansen - 2006 - Informal Logic 26 (3):319-340.
    Richard Whately’s views of arguments involving authority are very different in his Elements of Rhetoric and his Elements of Logic. This essay begins by documenting these differences and wondering why they are. It then proceeds to take a broader and more historical view of Whately’s discussions of authority and finds him occupying an important developmental ground between his predecessor Locke and contemporary views of the argument from authority. In fact, some of the things we now think are important in a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Coalescent argumentation.Michael A. Gilbert - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (5):837-852.
    Coalescent argumentation is a normative ideal that involves the joining together of two disparate claims through recognition and exploration of opposing positions. By uncovering the crucial connection between a claim and the attitudes, beliefs, feelings, values and needs to which it is connected dispute partners are able to identify points of agreement and disagreement. These points can then be utilized to effect coalescence, a joining or merging of divergent positions, by forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   171 citations  
  • Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2012 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory brings together twenty exploratory studies on important subjects of research in contemporary argumentation theory. The essays are based on papers that were presented at the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation in Amsterdam in June 2010. They give an impression of the nature and the variety of the kind of research that has recently been carried out in the study of argumentation. The volume starts with three essays that provide stimulating (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)The Epistemology of Anger in Argumentation.Moira Howes & Catherine Hundleby - 2018 - Symposion. Theoretical and Applied Inquiries in Philosophy and Social Sciences 5 (2):229-254.
    Moira Howes and Catherine Hundleby ABSTRACT: While anger can derail argumentation, it can also help arguers and audiences to reason together in argumentation. Anger can provide information about premises, biases, goals, discussants, and depth of disagreement that people might otherwise fail to recognize or prematurely dismiss. Anger can also enhance the salience of certain premises...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem fallacy.David Hitchcock - 2006 - In F. H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Haft-van Rees & A. M. (eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics: a festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. pp. 103.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • On the Theoretical Unification and Nature of Fallacies.Polycarp Ikuenobe - 2004 - Argumentation 18 (2):189-211.
    I argue in a non-reductive sense for a plausible epistemic principle, which can (1) theoretically and instrumentally unify or systematize all fallacies, and (2) provide a justification for using such a principle for characterizing an erroneous argument as a fallacy. This plausible epistemic principle involves the idea of an error in the method of justification, which results in a failure to provide relevant evidence to satisfy certain standards of adequate proof. Thus, all fallacies are systematically disguised failures to provide substantive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation.Jan Laar & Erik Krabbe - 2015 - Synthese 192 (4):1173-1197.
    What if in discussion the critic refuses to recognize an emotionally expressed argument of her interlocutor as an argument, accusing him of having presented no argument at all. In this paper, we shall deal with this reproach, which taken literally amounts to a charge of having committed a fallacy of non-argumentation. As such it is a very strong, if not the ultimate, criticism, which even carries the risk of abandonment of the discussion and can, therefore, not be made without burdening (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context.Chris Reed - 1997 - AI and Society 11 (1-2):138-154.
    The concept of argumentation in AI is based almost exclusively on the use of formal, abstract representations. Despite their appealing computational properties, these abstractions become increasingly divorced from their real world counterparts, and, crucially, lose the ability to express the rich gamut of natural argument forms required for creating effective text. In this paper, the demands that socially situated argumentation places on knowledge representation are explored, and the various problems with existing formalisations are discussed. Insights from argumentation theory and social (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations